CC 06-21-2023
#1
Memorial Park Specific
Plan
Supplemental Report
‐+
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL
Meeting: June 21, 2023
Agenda Item # 1
Subject
Consider the Memorial Park Specific Plan conceptual design.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council to:
1) Receive the Memorial Park Specific Plan design updates; 2) Confirm the Memorial Park Specific Plan design direction of the Conceptual Plan; and
3) Proceed with the Memorial Park Specific Plan schematic design.
Q1: Traffic and parking impact of the proposed plan? The Specific Plan contains some great features which will attract a lot of users, which would be great. I wonder whether we need to do an EIR for such a plan? And the expected increase in parking demand? (Councilmember Chao)
Q1 Staff response: Early in the project’s design process, the Site Assessment and Outreach Summary report was developed, and it includes parking and traffic analysis.
It is posted to the EngageCupertino.org/Memorial‐Park‐Specific‐plan webpage.
Currently the project team is engaged in the early stages of the environmental clearance. Prior to final acceptance of the Specific Plan, the project will have completed the necessary environmental review.
Q2: Since we are likely removing one of the only two softball fields in Cupertino, Iʹd like to know whether it is possible to provide an alternative somewhere else? For example, could an existing baseball field double as a softball field? What adjustment is needed? More girls play softball, so I hope we consider proposing an alternative location if we are removing the
only softball field in Memorial Park. Note that Iʹm not objecting to the removal of the softball field, since the replacement is pickle ball and basketball fields, which I agree is highly popular and will be well utilized.
Iʹm just exploring options so there is still a softball field in Cupertino. (Councilmember Chao)
Q2 Staff response: The City has two softball fields at Monta Vista Recreation Center.
Additionally, another softball field is available at Kennedy Middle School. These fields can accommodate fast‐pitch softball, and Kennedy Middle School is capable of accommodating both women’s and men’s slow‐pitch
softball. None of these fields is
equipped with night‐time lighting.
An item to note is that 17 of 18 of the softball teams that registered to use the Memorial Park Softball field in 2022 were registered as non‐resident teams. The registered teams for spring of 2023 consist of
15 of 15 non‐resident teams. A resident
team’s roster must consist of 51% or more Cupertino residents. A resident team receives a discount on its registration fees.
Q3: The proposed plan is really packed with a lot of good features which I am sure is popular with many residents, but
is it a good idea to pack all of
them in one park? What other parks could benefit from some of these features? Such as pickle ball fields. What other alternate locations might be more suitable? (Councilmember Chao)
Q3 Staff response: The Specific Plan is consistent with direction provided by the City
Council through the Council‐approved 2020 Parks and Recreation System Master Plan (PRSMP). The project team followed the community input and direction ascertained from the PRSMP, which includes suggestions for amenities for each park in the City (p. A‐3 of the PRSMP Appendices), as well as the best locations for the amenities in the City (p. F‐14 of the PRSMP Appendices). Planning for these amenities in a future project does not preclude the City from constructing similar amenities at other parks.
Q4: From past experience, the City often goes out to seek for ideas to develop a
park, and the Council ends up requesting a minimal option, which is often not included in the proposed options. This has happened with the Stevens Creek Corridor plan and others. For the Stevens Creek Corridor, the Council eventually adopted ʺOption Dʺ with the minimal design, which was not one of the three options from the consultants. The reason might be that the majority of people are happy with the current park and they are not likely to respond with enthusiasm to propose ideas for
change. Thus, the survey data is biased by those who want to see change, which may be a small portion of the population. Then, the people who like the park mostly the way it is would only speak up when a concrete plan is proposed to make a dramatic change which they are surprised to see. Thus, I wonder whether the staff could propose a minimal option for consideration? By minimal option, I meant that necessary upgrades of existing facilities could be included, but donʹt move them around to save cost of construction. (Councilmember Chao)
Q4 Staff response: Staff is following the direction laid out by the PRSMP and the Council in adopting the specific plan project. The immense amount of public outreach provides substantial information on what the community would like to see, however the Council can deviate from the public feedback and staff recommendation if desired.
Q5: Could DOLA continue to use the softball field since it seems to have worked out well from the comments we received? Are there other concerns for this arrangement to continue? (Councilmember Chao)
Q5 Staff response: The current use of the softball field as a DOLA is an unofficial use.
Staff has received complaints from park users about the off‐leash dogs at Memorial Park. Maintenance and risk/liability would need to be evaluated if the arrangement were to continue.
Q6: From the proposed concept design, it seems the combined area of the two playground areas is smaller than the combined areas of the two current
playground areas? But I might be wrong since I donʹt have a map of the current design. (Councilmember Chao)
Q6 Staff response: The two proposed play areas are of equal or greater area than the existing play areas. The current design plan is included as Attachment A of the
agenda packet for this item.
Q7: Could we get a map of the current layout of the park? (Councilmember Chao)
Q7 Staff response: The Site Assessment and Outreach Summary, found here https://engagecupertino.org/memorial‐park‐specific‐plan, has analysis diagrams of the existing park, starting on page 24.
Q8: How many hours on average is the softball field used during the course of the day? (Vice Mayor Mohan)
Q8 Staff response: The permitted use for calendar year 2022 totaled 544 hours of the 3650 hours available in the year (a 15% utilization rate).
Q9: How often are the softball fields in Jollyman Park and Monta Vista used? (Vice Mayor Mohan)
Q9 Staff response: Jollyman Park’s field is
a baseball field. Monta Vista Park softball
field reservations for calendar year 2022 totaled 522 hours of the 3,199 available (a 16% utilization rate).
Q10: Will the new plan result in increased water usage? If yes, does design include irrigation enhancements? (Vice Mayor Mohan)
Q10 Staff response: This concept
plan has not yet identified the level of detail
necessary to measure future water usage. As part of the Memorial Park Ponds Repurposing project, irrigation improvements were made to enhance the existing system. However, adjustments to the system will be necessary as new work is done, to ensure the most efficient use of water for future layouts.
Q11: Since the DOLA park will be fenced, will it be open all day? (Vice Mayor Mohan)
Q11 Staff response: Currently, fenced DOLAs are open during park hours. For the proposed DOLA at Memorial Park, operational hours will depend on the size, design features, layout, and other factors, and would be assessed at the time of implementation.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. MPSP Preferred Draft Concept 06‐01‐2023
B. MPSP Round 2 Survey Results
C. PRC Minutes 02‐02‐2023
D. BPC Minutes 02‐23‐2023
E. Parks and Recreation Commission Input 06‐01‐2023
CC 06-21-2023
#10
Development Proposal
1655 S. De Anza Blvd
Supplemental Report
1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
Meeting: June 21, 2023
Agenda Item #10
Subject
Consider a proposed mixed‐use redevelopment project consisting of 34 residential units and approximately 7,482 square feet of commercial space. Project includes the removal and replacement of 51 development trees and a range of site and landscape improvements. Consider the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project, which includes the following discretionary approvals: Application Numbers TM‐2021‐003, ASA‐2021‐004, DP‐2021‐002, U‐2021‐001, TR‐ 2022‐006, EA‐2022‐005. Applicant(s): Carlson Chan (Prospect Venture LLC); Location: 1655 S.
De Anza Blvd., APNs 366‐10‐061, ‐126
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolutions (Attachments A‐F) to:
1. Adopt Resolution No. 23‐075 adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA‐2022‐005);
2. Adopt Resolution No. 23‐076 approving the Development Permit (DP‐2021‐002);
3. Adopt Resolution No. 23‐077 approving the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA2021‐004);
4. Adopt Resolution No. 23‐078 approving the Use Permit (U‐2021‐001);
5. Adopt Resolution No. 23‐079 approving the Tentative Map (TM‐2021‐003); and
6. Adopt Resolution No. 23‐080 approving the Tree Removal Permit (TR‐2022‐006)
Background:
Staff’s responses to questions received from councilmember are shown in italics.
Q1: Since there were some privacy concerns from neighbors, will they largely be addressed by the tree planting? (Vice Mayor Mohan)
Staff response: As there have been comments from neighbors about privacy concerns, and retaining the existing privacy screening(mature Italian Cypresses), a condition has been added to the Tree removal Permit resolution (Resolution No. 23‐080) to retain these mature Italian Cypresses along the western property line (trees 24 – 36, 38‐40, and 41 – 54 on Sheet L6) as they provide ample privacy protection to the rear yards of the adjoining single‐family residences. For all other areas that do not have Italian Cypresses abutting the property line, privacy screening
2 plantings consistent with the City’s R1 Ordinance is proposed.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Draft Resolution for EA‐2022‐005
B. Draft Resolution for DP‐2021‐002
C. Draft Resolution for ASA‐2021‐004
D. Draft Resolution for U‐2021‐001
E. Draft Resolution for TM‐2021‐003
F. Draft Resolution for TR‐2022‐006
G. Planning Commission Resolution 2023‐08
H. Planning Commission Resolution 2023‐09
I. Planning Commission Resolution 2023‐10
J. Planning Commission Resolution 2023‐11
K. Planning Commission Resolution 2023‐12
L. Planning Commission Resolution 2023‐13
M. Letter from Brandon Airoli, of Propriis dated March 9, 2021 N. BMR Program 1655 S De Anza Blvd Cupertino Project, Brandon Arioli O. 1655 South De Anza Boulevard Mixed‐Use Project Initial Study, Final IS/MND, May 2023
P. Response to Comment Memorandum, Dated May 15, 2023
Q. Site Plan and Renderings
R. Public Comment